Planned Parenthood and human (in)equality

October 16 marks the 100-year anniversary of Planned Parenthood. The group's founder, Margaret Sanger, was a birth control pioneer. But she didn't view "birth control" (a term she helped coin) in the same way as people today. "Birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defective," Sanger wrote in her 1920 book Woman and the New Race.

Sanger, indeed, was a eugenicist who wanted to prevent the procreation of people she deemed "unfit," such as many who were poor, sick, and disabled. She urged the government to "restrain, either by force or persuasion, the moron and the imbecile from producing his large family of feeble-minded offspring." She said that stopping "the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective" was "the most urgent problem today."

Sanger's view of humanity was expressed in a passage from one of her essays (titled "The Need for Birth Control in America"):

In his last book, Mr. [H.G.] Wells speaks of the meaningless, aimless lives which cram this world of ours, hordes of people who are born, who live, who die, yet who have done absolutely nothing to advance the race one iota. Their lives are hopeless repetitions. All that they have said has been said before; all that they have done has been done better before. Such human weeds clog up the path, drain up the energies and the resources of this little earth. We must clear the way for a better world; we must cultivate our garden.

This is a significant part of the vision with which Planned Parenthood was founded. It is a view that rejects the good of human life as such. It says that some lives—the lives of those who are "defective," who do not contribute, who are "human weeds"—are "meaningless" and not worth living. It denies the fundamental equality and importance of all members of the human family.

Planned Parenthood's eugenic attitude (later couched more in terms of population control) lived on for decades. Alan Guttmacher (for whom the Guttmacher Institute is named), for example, became president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) in 1962. Guttmacher was a long-time eugenicist and former vice president of the American Eugenic Society. He warned in a speech (in 1942) that "the mentally retarded and the mentally defective" are "insidiously ... replacing the people of normal mentality." Guttmacher hoped in 1969 that "some day a way of enforcing compulsory birth control will be feasible."

Now, one-hundred years after its founding, Planned Parenthood doesn't talk about eugenics any more. But that doesn't mean that Sanger's views are completely absent from the work of the organization.

Today PPFA is, by a large margin, the leading practitioner of abortion in the United States. It performs about a third of a million abortions each year. Planned Parenthood vigorously opposes any limits on abortion and actively supports political candidates who champion unfettered and publicly funded abortion—and who will funnel hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars annually back into Planned Parenthood's coffers. The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) likewise promotes abortion all around the world.

This current work is, in important ways, even more troubling than the eugenic efforts of Sanger:

• Sanger rejected the equal worth of those she considered "unfit," and she promoted contraception and forced sterilization among certain groups of people as a result. Today, Planned Parenthood rejects the equal worth of human beings in utero—who are smaller, less developed, and more dependent than most other people—and kills such human beings on an industrial scale.
• Sanger called people who have disabilities "biological and racial mistakes" and sought to prevent their existence. Today, Planned Parenthood kills disabled human beings who already exist (while they are still in the womb).
• Sanger considered certain people "defective" and burdensome. She wanted to use birth control to eliminate such "human weeds" for the benefit of the rest of us. Today, Planned Parenthood kills unborn human beings who are deemed "defective" and "burdensome" in order to (ostensibly) benefit others.

That today's Planned Parenthood rejects human equality is not debatable. It is undeniably true because the embryos and fetuses whose lives are systematically and violently ended by Planned Parenthood are, as a matter of biological fact, members of the species Homo sapiens. (Indeed, many defenders of abortion argue that unborn children are human "non-persons" who simply don't matter in the same way as the rest of us.)

Over the last 100 years, Planned Parenthood's language and rhetoric have certainly become less inegalitarian. But its actual work has become more grotesque. Planned Parenthood doesn't overtly tout inequality any more, but its lethal actions presuppose it.

This denial of the moral equality of all human beings is perhaps the most important thread that runs through the organization's history. From Sanger to Guttmacher to today's no-limits abortion advocacy, Planned Parenthood has stood—and continues to stand—for the proposition that some human lives are inferior to others.

Abortion numbers in decline across Minnesota—except at Planned Parenthood

The following is a follow-up to today's earlier news release.

ST. PAUL — Planned Parenthood continues to defy state and national trends of declining abortion numbers by managing to perform more abortions, year after year. As Minnesota’s largest abortionist, Planned Parenthood enlarged its market beyond 50 percent for the first time, despite a decrease in abortions statewide, according to the state’s annual Abortion Report issued today by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH).

Planned Parenthood increased its abortions by 28.5 percent from 2011 to 2015, and has more than doubled its abortion business since 2000. Beginning in 2007, state abortion totals declined each year except in 2014, when the number rose 2 percent. In contrast, Planned Parenthood’s annual abortion numbers were down from the previous year in only two of those nine years. Planned Parenthood's 2015 total of 5,048 abortions was its highest number ever, and a record market share of 51.2 percent of all abortions performed in Minnesota.

Despite Planned Parenthood, many of the 2015 statistics are encouraging. Last year's total of 9,861 abortions was the lowest since 1974. Just 246 abortions were performed on minors, accounting for 2.5 percent of the total. This is the smallest number since the state began recording minor abortions in 1975 and represents a decline of 89 percent from their peak in 1980, the year prior to passage of Minnesota's Parental Notification law.

More than 11,600 women received factual, state provided information about abortion risks and complications, abortion alternatives and much more under the Woman's Right to Know law. MCCL helped to pass the informed consent law in 2003; state abortion numbers have decreased in all but two years since the law took effect. MCCL also helped to enact the Positive Alternatives law, which took effect in July 2006.

Not all of today's report is good news, however. Abortions were performed at a rate of more than 27 every single day last year. More than 40 percent of abortions in 2015 were performed on women who had undergone at least one prior abortion; 703 women had three or more previous abortions. The report also shows that African Americans remain a target of the abortion industry. They represent just 5.5 percent of the state’s population, yet 24 percent of abortions were performed on African Americans.

Tax-funded abortions increased from 38.1 to 43.3 percent of all abortions last year. This is the highest percentage since the 1995 Doe v. Gomez decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court required taxpayers to pay for abortions performed on low-income women. This percentage has increased nearly every year since the court ruling. Taxpayers have funded 77,438 abortions since the decision.

Full reports for 2015 and prior years are available at the MDH website.

Tax-funded abortions spike to highest-ever percentage in MN

The following news release was issued on April 4, 2016.

ST. PAUL — After 19 years of taxpayer-funded abortions, Minnesotans are paying for 39 percent of all abortions performed in the state. Taxpayers have funded more than 73,000 abortions at a cost of $22.5 million, according to a just-released report from the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS). Taxpayer-funded abortions numbered almost 4,000 in Minnesota in 2014; nearly all of those abortions were elective.

Taxpayers are forced to fund abortions due to a successful 1995 challenge to Minnesota's law which prohibited funding of most abortions. Since then, abortion advocates have steadily marketed taxpayer-funded abortions to low-income women. Taxpayers now pay for 39 percent of all abortions (up from 34.2 percent in 2013), the highest percentage ever.

"Aggressive promotion of abortion to economically vulnerable women is enriching the state’s abortion industry," said Scott Fischbach, Executive Director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL). "It is time to end this exploitation of low-income women and their unborn children."

Minnesota taxpayers have been required to fund elective abortions since the Minnesota Supreme Court's 1995 Doe v. Gomez ruling. In that decision, the Court created a state "right" to abortion on demand and obligated all taxpayers to fund abortions, including purely elective procedures.

Since the Doe v. Gomez ruling, taxpayers have paid $22,507,205 for a total of 73,171 abortion procedure claims. Taxpayers' 2014 portion (the latest available) was $953,187 for 3,957 abortions. Prior to the court decision, taxpayers were charged about $7,000 per year for about two dozen abortions in cases of rape and incest and to save the life of the mother.

Planned Parenthood's taxpayer funded abortion claims rose 40 percent in 2014, after rising 45 percent in 2012 and 2013. Planned Parenthood increased its revenues from taxpayer funded abortions in 2014 by 39 percent to $410,713; it filed claims for 1,801 abortions, which represented 45 percent of the claims that year.

Whole Woman's Health, which purchased and merged two abortion facilities in Minneapolis, filed 1,081 abortion claims, the second most. The abortion business has paid several large fines for breaking the law in Texas. Legislation currently before Minnesota lawmakers (S.F. 616, H.F. 606) would require the state’s five surgical abortion facilities to be licensed and inspected by the Department of Health as outpatient surgical centers. None is licensed or inspected by the state.

"Polls continue to show that most Minnesotans and most Americans are opposed to taxpayer funded abortions, yet they continue to be forced to pay for them," Fischbach said.

MCCL helped to pass a ban on taxpayer funded abortion during the 2011 legislative session; it was vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton. Similar legislation (S.F. 683, H.F. 607) was introduced last year in the Minnesota Senate and House of Representatives. The measure would end the forced funding by taxpayers of this mistreatment of poor women and the killing of unborn children.

Planned Parenthood annual report reveals abortion focus in MN

The following news release was issued on Jan. 19, 2016.

MINNEAPOLIS—With the recent release of the Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS) 2014 annual report, it is important for Minnesotans to know that abortion is the one area where it is growing its business. A Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) fact sheet comparing services provided by PPMNS in 2013 and 2014 shows that abortion was the organization's only significant growth area in 2014.

"The latest PPMNS annual report demonstrates what MCCL has been saying for years—that Planned Parenthood's focus is abortion, not health care," said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. "Fewer and fewer women are resorting to Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services. But greater numbers of women are being pressured to abort their unborn babies at Planned Parenthood."

The annual reports list eight services; among them, six saw declines in 2014 over 2013. For example, contraception units distributed were down 13 percent, and family planning visits fell 8 percent. PPMNS also saw a decline in its total number of patients (down 4 percent to 65,332) and total patient services (down 10 percent, or 62,040 fewer) in 2014.

Abortion was the exception among services, increasing fully 10 percent in 2014. A total of 5,500 unborn children were aborted at Planned Parenthood that year, according to its report. PPMNS expanded its abortion business by 10 percent in a year when the number of abortions in the state rose just 2.2 percent. PPMNS now commands more than 49 percent of the state’s abortion business, and it increases its market share every year.

Revenue rose significantly in 2014. PPMNS ended the year with total assets up 8 percent to $64.5 million and investment income quadrupled to $1.7 million. Even patient service fees increased 6 percent to $26.7 million. Despite diminished numbers of clients and services, 2014 was a very good year for PPMNS.

"Fewer patients and fewer services, more abortions and more revenue—that is the story of Planned Parenthood in Minnesota," Fischbach added. "Planned Parenthood is focused on dominating the profitable abortion industry, not on providing health care for women."

Congress votes to defund Planned Parenthood; Peterson only Democrat willing to protect the unborn

The following news release was issued on Jan. 6, 2016.

Congressman Collin Peterson (DFL, CD7) again today was the only Democrat to vote in favor of a pro-life bill in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The House took up a special fast-track bill (H.R. 3762, the "pro-life reconciliation bill") that would cut off nearly 90 percent of the federal funds that go to Planned Parenthood—about $400 million. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) strongly supports the measure, along with the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

Minnesota Congressmen John Kline (CD2), Erik Paulsen (CD3), Tom Emmer (CD6) and Peterson voted in support of the Senate amendments to the Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act (H.R. 3762). Members of Congress Tim Walz, Betty McCollum, Keith Ellison and Rick Nolan voted against the measure, which was approved in a 240-181 vote.

"We commend Representative Peterson for his longstanding commitment to life, and urge other Democrats to follow his lead," said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. "The cause of life must transcend partisan boundaries. Life is not a partisan issue but rather, most importantly, a human rights issue. Here in Minnesota we are fortunate to have pro-life Democrats and pro-life Republicans who are willing to cross the political divide to protect and defend human life."

The legislation would suspend funding of Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, for one year. It would close the largest pipeline for federal funding of Planned Parenthood, Medicaid, and apply as well to the CHIP and the Title V and Title XX block grant programs. The amounts denied to Planned Parenthood in effect are reallocated to community health centers.

In addition, the Senate-passed H.R. 3762 would repeal many components of Obamacare, including the program that provides taxpayer subsidies to about 1,000 health plans that cover elective abortions.

The legislation will now be sent to President Obama, who has threatened to veto it.

MCCL condemns violence in Colorado Springs

Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) vigorously condemns the shooting today at a Colorado Springs, Colo., Planned Parenthood facility. Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee (with which MCCL is affiliated), issued the following statement in response to today's tragedy:

National Right to Life, which represents 50 state affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters, unequivocally condemns unlawful activities and acts of violence regardless of motivation. The pro-life movement works to protect the right to life and increase respect for human life. The unlawful use of violence is directly contrary to that goal.

MCCL works peacefully and legally through education, legislation, and political action to protect innocent human life from the violence of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. MCCL's official policy strongly forbids the use of any kind of violence or illegal activity.

U.S. House, Senate vote on three pro-life bills

The following news release was issued on Sept. 22, 2015.

Three major pro-life bills intended to protect the lives of unborn babies and their mothers have received votes in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) strongly supports these measures, along with the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

Congressmen John Kline, Erik Paulsen, Tom Emmer and Collin Peterson voted in support of two protective bills on Friday, Sept. 18. The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, H.R. 3504, would strengthen and expand federal legal protection for babies born alive during abortions. The Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015, H.R. 3134, would suspend funding of the nation's largest abortion provider for one year. Members of Congress Tim Walz, Betty McCollum, Keith Ellison and Rick Nolan voted against both measures. Both bills were approved in the House.

"Thankfully Minnesota has four members of Congress who consistently vote to protect and defend our most vulnerable citizens—unborn children and their mothers," said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. "It is unthinkable that an elected official would side with the abortion industry over the right to life of a human being born alive, whatever the circumstances."

In the U.S. Senate today, a procedural vote needed to advance the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, H.R. 36, failed on a 54-42 vote (60 votes were needed). The legislation would have banned abortion at the point when the unborn child can feel pain, which research has determined is 20 weeks or five months of pregnancy. More than 70 percent of Americans oppose abortion after 20 weeks.

U.S. Sens. Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar voted against the effort to protect pain-capable unborn children by opposing the procedural measure to advance the bill. Both of Minnesota's senators have longstanding records of opposition to pro-life legislation.

"Senators Franken and Klobuchar hold an extreme position on abortion opposed by the vast majority of Minnesotans," Fischbach said. "They will side with the abortion industry even when it results in the senseless suffering of innocent unborn children."

Franken, Klobuchar vote to fund Planned Parenthood

The following news release was issued on Aug. 4, 2015.

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sens. Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar joined Senate Democrats Monday to block a bill that would end all federal funding of the nation's largest abortion provider. The measure, S. 1881, would block funding of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and its affiliates. The Senate showed strong support for the bill but fell short of the votes required to advance the legislation.

The votes cast by senators Klobuchar and Franken are consistent with their 100 percent pro-abortion voting records. Neither Klobuchar nor Franken has ever cast a pro-life vote in the U.S. Senate.

"Planned Parenthood's political arm is a major backer of many senators, who voted to block the bill to defund their political ally," said Scott Fischbach, Executive Director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL). "As longtime recipients of Planned Parenthood campaign funding, senators Klobuchar and Franken chose to continue to support Planned Parenthood in spite of its dismemberment of living human beings in the womb."

Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, introduced S. 1881 last week with the strong backing of Majority Leader McConnell, in response to a series of videos released by The Center for Medical Progress. The videos, which underscore the need for passage of legislation to cut off all federal funds to Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, show top Planned Parenthood officials discussing the harvesting and trafficking of body parts from unborn babies killed by abortion.

S. 1881 states, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no federal funds may be made available to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, or to any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics." The bill also contains language to provide that "all funds no longer available to Planned Parenthood will continue to be made available to other eligible entities to provide women's health care services." In other words, any funds cut from Planned Parenthood would be reallocated to women's health services provided by others.

Community health centers across the United States vastly outnumber Planned Parenthood, totaling 9,059 to 669, according to the Washington Post. Women could still access the health care they need without Planned Parenthood.

"Senator Ernst's bill would push the snout of Planned Parenthood, a bloated abortion mega-marketer and a fetal organ trafficker, out of the U.S. Treasury feeding trough," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life.

Planned Parenthood performs more abortions than any other organization in the nation: About one-third of all abortions in the U.S. are performed at Planned Parenthood-affiliated facilities. According to its most recent annual report, Planned Parenthood receives at least $528 million annually from the federal government and other levels of government.

Investigation reveals that Planned Parenthood harvests the organs of aborted unborn children

Undercover videos released this summer reveal that Planned Parenthood, the nation's leading practitioner of abortion, sometimes harvests the body parts of babies killed by abortion. Planned Parenthood receives payment in exchange for the parts from companies that provide the tissue to researchers.

In one video, Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood's senior director of medical services, discusses how Planned Parenthood alters the dismemberment abortion process in order to preserve the desired organs and fill specific pre-orders.

"I'd say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they'll know where they're putting their forceps," she says. "We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I'm not gonna crush that part, I'm gonna basically crush below, I'm gonna crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact."

A second video shows Mary Gatter, president of Planned Parenthood's Medical Directors' Council, negotiating the compensation for aborted baby parts with prospective buyers. She says that "the money is not the important thing, but it has to be big enough that it is worthwhile." Gatter concludes: "Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then it's fine, if it's still low, then we can bump it up." She then laughingly adds, "I want a Lamborghini."

Sarah Stoesz, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, writes: "While Planned Parenthood in our state does not have a [fetal] tissue donation program, we stand behind our colleagues around the country [who do harvest fetal parts]."

A few key facts about Planned Parenthood:

• Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS) is Minnesota's leading practitioner of abortion. The organization performed 4,981 abortions in 2014, nearly half of the statewide total.
• PPMNS billed taxpayers $295,216 for 1,287 abortions in 2013.
• PPMNS received more than $5 million in government grants and contracts in 2013.
• Abortion facilities in Minnesota, including Planned Parenthood's abortion center in St. Paul, are unlicensed and uninspected by the state.
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America is the nation's leading provider of abortion. The organization performed 327,653 abortions in 2013.
• Planned Parenthood received $528.4 million from the government in the year ending in June 2014.

Taxpayer funded abortions reach highest percentage ever in Minnesota

The following news release was issued on April 1, 2015.

ST. PAUL — After 18 years of taxpayer-funded abortions, Minnesotans have funded more than 69,000 abortions at a cost of $21.5 million, according to a just-released report from the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS). Taxpayer-funded abortions numbered almost 3,400 in Minnesota in 2013; nearly all of those abortions were elective.

The state's abortion industry in 1995 successfully challenged Minnesota's law which prohibited funding of most abortions. Since then, abortion advocates have steadily marketed taxpayer-funded abortions to low-income women. Taxpayers now pay for 34.2 percent of all abortions performed in the state, the highest percentage ever.

"The state's abortion facilities target economically vulnerable women to ensure steady revenue from abortion," said Scott Fischbach, Executive Director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL). "It is time to end this exploitation of poor women and their unborn children."

Minnesota taxpayers have been required to fund elective abortions since the Minnesota Supreme Court's 1995 Doe v. Gomez ruling. In that decision, the Court created a state "right" to abortion on demand and obligated all taxpayers to fund abortions, including purely elective procedures.

Since the Doe v. Gomez ruling, taxpayers have paid $21,554,018 for a total of 69,214 abortion procedure claims. Taxpayers' 2013 portion (the latest available) was $816,729 for 3,391 abortions. Prior to the court decision, taxpayers were charged about $7,000 per year for about two dozen abortions in cases of rape and incest and to save the life of the mother.

Planned Parenthood's taxpayer funded abortion claims rose 13 percent in 2013, after rising 32 percent in 2012. Planned Parenthood increased its revenues from taxpayer funded abortions in 2013 by 16 percent to $295,216; it filed claims for 1,287 abortions, which represented 38 percent of the claims that year.

Whole Woman's Health, which purchased and merged two abortion facilities in Minneapolis, filed 1,089 abortion claims, the second largest. The abortion business has paid several large fines for breaking the law in Texas. Legislation currently before Minnesota lawmakers (S.F. 616, H.F. 606) would require the state's five surgical abortion facilities to be licensed and inspected by the Department of Health as outpatient surgical centers. None is licensed or inspected by the state.

"Polls continue to show that most Minnesotans and most Americans are opposed to taxpayer funded abortions, yet they continue to be forced to pay for them," Fischbach said.

MCCL helped to pass a ban on taxpayer funded abortion during the 2011 legislative session; it was vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton. Similar legislation (S.F. 683, H.F. 607) has been introduced this year in the Minnesota Senate and House of Representatives. The House bill has been approved by several committees and is now before the full House. The measure would end the forced funding by taxpayers of this mistreatment of poor women and the killing of unborn children.

Who is Tina Smith? Dayton running mate, former abortion industry leader

Who is Tina Smith? Most Minnesotans have no idea.

Smith is Gov. Mark Dayton's running mate in the Nov. 4 election. She served as his chief of staff during his first term. And she’s a former vice president for the state’s leading performer and promoter of abortion.

Smith put her marketing background to work for Planned Parenthood from January 2003 to February 2006. The organization performed 9,717 abortions in Minnesota during that period. It was also reimbursed $458,574.74 by Minnesota taxpayers for performing 1,892 abortions on low-income women. Planned Parenthood became the largest abortion provider in the state in 2004—and has held that position ever since. It received $12.65 million in government grants from 2003 to 2005.

As a top representative for the abortion industry, Smith strongly opposed commonsense legislation such as the Positive Alternatives Act of 2005, which provides pregnant women in need with practical assistance and life-affirming alternatives to abortion. During Smith's tenure as chief of staff, Dayton vetoed seven different pro-life measures, including licensing of abortion facilities and protection for pain-capable unborn children. He also vetoed a bill to stop the public funding of abortions at facilities like Planned Parenthood.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund honored Smith in 2012 "for her passion and commitment to Planned Parenthood." It's clear what Tina Smith fights for: no-limits abortion, subsidized by taxpayers.

Is this who Minnesotans want in the governor's office?

A response to Planned Parenthood on taxpayer funding of abortion

In our May 7 Star Tribune commentary we made the case against taxpayer funding of abortion in Minnesota. On May 9 the newspaper published a reply from Sarah Stoesz, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota.

It is utterly unpersuasive. Three points call for a response.

First, Stoesz claims it is "completely false" and "a blatant disregard for the facts" to say, as we did, that "public funding means more abortions." Why is it false? Because abortions in Minnesota have declined in recent years even though the state funds the procedure for low-income women.

Actually, though, the number of abortions increased in the years after Medicaid started paying for elective abortions in 1994—interrupting a very substantial decline—and did not start consistently dropping again until 2002.

In any case, our point, which I had thought was clear, was that public funding increases the incidence of abortion relative to what it would be without public funding, and limits on funding decrease the incidence of abortion relative to what it would be without those limits. This is virtually undeniable—it is supported by a wealth of peer-reviewed research and even confirmed in a Guttmacher Institute literature review, which we quoted in our op-ed and which Stoesz does not question. (Stoesz acknowledges that "some women will choose to carry a pregnancy to term if their insurance doesn't cover abortion," but that is just a another way of expressing the same point we made, which she condemns as "completely false"!)

Stoesz does, however, seem eager to downplay the number of women who choose life when state abortion funding isn't available. But the number is significant. Using Guttmacher's own 25 percent estimate (which may well be too low), about 893 fewer Minnesota women would have had abortions in 2012 (the latest year for which data is available) if the state did not pay for abortions through Medicaid. There would have been 16,456 fewer abortions since June of 1994, when public funding began.

In other words: Thousands and thousands of abortions have occurred because of this policy of taxpayer-funded abortion, which Stoesz and Planned Parenthood so strongly support.

Second, Stoesz "celebrates" the long-term abortion decline in Minnesota because, she asserts, it means that Planned Parenthood's work is succeeding. This is an odd statement. Planned Parenthood is the state's leading abortion provider, performing 3,917 abortions in 2012, according to the Minnesota Department of Health. Planned Parenthood has somehow managed to increase its abortion total by 60 percent since 2000—even as overall abortions have dropped 26 percent.

It seems more plausible to say that abortions have declined despite the work of Planned Parenthood, not because of it.

Finally, Stoesz repeatedly refers to taxpayer-funded abortion as a "medical decision" that must be preserved for the sake of "a woman's health and safety." But we are talking about elective abortion, which, we noted in our original commentary, "is not health care—it violently attacks the health and ends the life of a developing human being."

Stoesz offers no real justification for treating the killing of human beings in utero as a public good that all taxpayers should be required to subsidize. She offers only confused and misleading statements and tired rhetoric.

Planned Parenthood targets low-income women

Click to enlarge

Taxpayer funding of abortion in Minnesota is a result of the state Supreme Court's Doe v. Gomez decision. See also MCCL's coverage of the latest report on taxpayer-funded abortions.

How Planned Parenthood makes a difference in Minnesota

Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS) is advertising a nursing position at its abortion center in St. Paul. "Make a difference in someone's life today—work for Planned Parenthood!" the job listing says.

What kind of difference?

PPMNS—the local affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America—has been the state's leading abortion provider since 2004. In 2012 Planned Parenthood performed 3,917 abortions in Minnesota, an average of more than 10 per day. It performed 36.6 percent of all abortions, and almost 1,700 more abortions than the next largest provider.

Planned Parenthood increased its abortions by 8.6 percent in 2012 even as the state total decreased. It has increased its abortion total by 60 percent since 2000. State abortions decreased 26 percent in the same period.

Abortion is big business. PPMNS had a 2012 revenue of $32.48 million, receiving $4.46 million from the government (federal, state and local). Some taxpayer dollars directly pay for abortions. In 2011 (the latest data available) Planned Parenthood was reimbursed more than $196,000 by taxpayers for 865 abortions performed on low-income women. The percentage of Minnesota abortions funded by the state has steadily increased and reached 34 percent in 2012.

Planned Parenthood is also very active politically. It works to elect pro-abortion political candidates and has vigorously fought pro-life legislation at the state Capitol. It even opposes the most mainstream, commonsense measures, such as the Woman's Right to Know informed consent law and Positive Alternatives, which provides practical help to pregnant women in need.

PPMNS opened its large new headquarters in St. Paul at the end of 2011. And in 2010 it began remotely prescribing RU486 chemical abortions to women at its Rochester facility who never meet with a doctor in person. The method allows Planned Parenthood to expand abortion to more locations, but it only exacerbates the risks of RU486 to the health of women. (These "webcam abortions" were recently banned for safety reasons by the Iowa Board of Medicine in the only other state where they take place.)

So what kind of difference does Planned Parenthood make? Each year Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota brings in millions of dollars by destroying thousands of innocent human lives and causing emotional and psychological harm to an unknown number of women (and men).

Planned Parenthood does make a difference.

From 'choice' to 'not in her shoes': Planned Parenthood sidesteps the issue

The use of "choice" in the abortion debate was never substantive. Everyone understands that some choices are morally unproblematic (choosing to exercise, to eat ice cream, to talk with friends) and other choices are not (choosing to rape, to steal, to abuse children). So the question at hand is What kind of choice is abortion? The question is whether the act of abortion is morally permissible or impermissible and/or whether it is the kind of act that should be permitted under the law. To talk only of "choice" is to completely sidestep the issue.

Planned Parenthood, after commissioning some opinion polls, recently announced that it is moving away from the rhetoric of choice. Why? Because abortion is "complicated" and "not a black and white issue," and the pro-life and pro-choice labels "limit the conversation and simply don't reflect how people actually feel about abortion."

This language strikes me as disingenuous—a ploy to make unlimited abortion more palatable—because Planned Parenthood's own position is not nuanced or ambiguous. It is black and white. The nation's leading performer and promoter of abortion still contends that elective abortion is morally permissible and should be legal (and, in at least many cases, publicly funded) for any or no reason, at any time during pregnancy, with virtually no restrictions. This is the radical abortion-on-demand, no-conceivable-limits view that most Americans reject and have always rejected. Planned Parenthood now touts the high percentage (40 percent, according to the group's polling) of Americans who say the morality of abortion "depends on the situation," but that is not Planned Parenthood's view. It just sounds better than Planned Parenthood's view because it is far less extreme.

Anyway, in lieu of "choice," the organization has introduced a new website and video titled "Not in Her Shoes." The website summarizes: "Abortion is a deeply personal and often complex decision for a woman to make. You can't make that decision for someone else. Nobody knows a woman's specific situation—we're not in her shoes." This approach is not really new, as some have suggested. It is decades old. And though it might serve as an effective rhetorical device, it obscures, rather than clarifies, the truth about abortion.

Is abortion complicated? It can surely be emotionally or psychologically complex for a pregnant woman and other persons involved. But morally the issue of abortion is straightforward, hinging on the moral status of the being in the womb who is dismembered and killed. For if the human embryo or fetus is a rights-bearing member of the human family, like you or me or a five-year-old child, then killing him or her for socio-economic reasons, however complex, is no more justified than killing a five-year-old for those same reasons. The circumstances (and other factors) no doubt affect the subjective culpability of a pregnant woman—whom we should not judge—but they do not affect the objective morality of the act, just as the desperation of a young parent does not affect the morality of child abandonment. "Hardship," observes Francis Beckwith, "does not justify homicide."

The crux of the debate over the ethics of abortion is the nature and value of the unborn: Is the human embryo or fetus a human being? Since, as science has established, the unborn is indeed a living individual of the species Homo sapiens, how should we treat him or her? Do all human beings, at all developmental stages, have a right to life, or do only some? These are the questions that matter, and they are questions that Planned Parenthood continues to ignore when making its case to the public.

Difficult circumstances call for a compassionate response to meet the needs of women and their families. They are not a reason to authorize killing or an excuse to abandon women to that choice (pardon the term). Pregnancy care centers across the nation are doing the hard work of grappling with the complexities of women's lives while affirming the dignity of both mother and child.

They are doing what Planned Parenthood ought to do. They are putting themselves in her shoes.

Study shows that telemedicine expands abortion access in Iowa

A new study published in the American Journal of Public Health analyzes the use of telemedicine to remotely administer "medical" (chemical, RU486) abortions in Iowa. Planned Parenthood began performing these "webcam abortions" in 2008, and by 2010 they were offered at 11 different clinics across Iowa.

The study should be taken with a few grains of salt because the authors strongly favor abortion; one actually worked for Planned Parenthood in Iowa at the time of the study, and two more work for the abortion advocacy organization Ibis Reproductive Health. The research should not be dismissed for that reason -- it must be assessed on its merits -- but readers should know the ideological perspective the authors seek to advance.

MCCL brochure

The study only analyzes the first two years after webcam abortions were introduced -- and they were "phased in" over 21 months, nearly the entire study period -- so the full effect may not yet be clear (a limitation acknowledged by the authors). But here is what the researchers write in their summary:

[T]he proportion of abortions in the [Planned Parenthood] clinics that were medical increased from 46% to 54%. After telemedicine was introduced, and with adjustment for other factors, clinic patients had increased odds of obtaining both medical abortion and abortion before 13 weeks' gestation. Although distance traveled to the clinic decreased only slightly, women living farther than 50 miles from the nearest clinic offering surgical abortion were more likely to obtain an abortion after telemedicine introduction.

The researchers also note that overall abortions in Iowa declined during this period (as they did in many states), but that is clearly despite the webcam introduction, not because of it. Planned Parenthood -- the group performing the webcam abortions -- saw an increase in abortions. And while abortions dropped in the heavily-populated Des Moines area (where abortion was already very accessible), "the data showed ... an increase in the number of abortions performed on women living in the western and eastern portions of the state" -- the places where webcam abortions were introduced. Indeed, "availability of abortion services certainly increased after telemedicine introduction, because the number of clinics providing abortion care increased."

While the number of surgical abortions decreased, the number of RU486 abortions increased. And "most of the increase in the number of medical abortions after telemedicine introduction occurred among women living more than 50 miles from one of the surgical abortion clinics, especially in more remote parts of Iowa, as well as in eastern Nebraska and northwest Illinois. In most cases, the increases occurred in areas surrounding telemedicine sites."

With regard to abortion clinics in general (not just Planned Parenthood clinics), "The proportion of medical abortions among all abortions increased significantly, from 33.4% to 45.3%." So almost half of abortions in Iowa from 2008 to 2010 were RU486 abortions. That is startling, and the percentage is probably higher now than it was over the whole two-year period.

The authors conclude that "telemedicine could improve access to medical abortion, especially for women living in remote areas, and reduce second-trimester abortion." The bottom line is that this study provides evidence that the use of telemedicine for abortion does precisely what one would expect: it increases the incidence of RU486 abortions, increases the percentage of overall abortions that use RU486, and increases the incidence of abortion among women in rural areas -- which increases the overall incidence of abortion relative to what it would otherwise be. None of that is good considering both the unborn children killed and the women who risk their health by this particular abortion method.

Policy analyst Jacqueline Harvey, Ph.D., notes:

While methodologically sound, the study reads more like market research than a treatise on public health, especially since there was no mention of any complications. Using the most conservative numbers in range on incomplete abortions requiring surgical follow-up to a mere 2%, this means that of the study's 9,758 patients, at least 195 women who could not make the trip to a see a physician in person faced this complication alone. While earlier abortions do pose less risk, the authors do not acknowledge the risks involved with unsupervised self-abortion. The authors herald tele-med abortions as increasing access to abortions for women in rural areas, but do not consider a potential danger for women who cannot be treated for complications over a webcam.

The study is especially relevant to us in Minnesota because Planned Parenthood is now offering webcam abortions at its Rochester facility. It could soon expand this practice as it did in Iowa.

Pro-abortion Gov. Mark Dayton to be honored by Planned Parenthood

The following news release was issued today, Oct. 23.

ST. PAUL — Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota will honor one of its strongest allies in the business of destroying unborn babies. Gov. Mark Dayton will receive the abortion organization's Courage Award tonight at its "Celebrate!" gala in downtown Minneapolis.

"Abortion and abortion advocacy have become a cause of celebration for Planned Parenthood and its political partners," said Scott Fischbach, Executive Director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state's oldest and largest pro-life organization. "Dayton has given them many reasons to praise him, having vetoed no less than seven pro-life measures passed by the Legislature in his first two years as governor."

In 2011, Dayton vetoed five major pro-life provisions: the Unborn Child Pain Prevention Act, a ban on taxpayer funding of abortion, bans on human cloning and taxpayer funding of human cloning, and protections to keep tax dollars away from family planning organizations (including Planned Parenthood) that are involved in abortion.

Dayton vetoed two more bills in 2012 that would have protected women's health and safety. One would have brought the state's six abortion facilities in line with the state's other outpatient surgical centers by requiring them to be licensed, and would have authorized the Minnesota Department of Health to perform inspections of abortion facilities. The other bill would have stopped dangerous "webcam" abortions by requiring that a physician be physically present when administering the drugs for a chemical abortion.

"Planned Parenthood is obviously grateful to Dayton for protecting its taxpayer funding and for blocking the state from licensing its new abortion megacenter—the nation's third largest—in St. Paul," Fischbach said. "Dayton has done Planned Parenthood's bidding in every case, at the expense of thousands of human lives. This is hardly anything to celebrate."

Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood continues to kill thousands of unborn children in Minnesota, year after year, and wound women physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. The state's largest abortionist killed 3,608 unborn babies last year. That's an average of nearly 10 unborn babies killed every single day; less than one percent were in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.

It's time to get taxpayers out of the abortion industry, Mr. President

Last night President Obama repeatedly criticized (five times!) Mitt Romney for wanting to deny federal funding to Planned Parenthood, a criticism Obama has made throughout the campaign (often inaccurately, claiming that Romney wants to "get rid" of Planned Parenthood itself rather than its government subsidies). The president's own record is clear. Obama indicated during the 2011 budget showdown that he was willing to force the federal government to shut down rather than cut any of the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that currently go to Planned Parenthood each year. And his administration has blocked the efforts of multiple states to de-fund the abortion provider, even threatening to withhold states' Medicaid money. Planned Parenthood, in turn, has spent millions trying to ensure Obama's reelection and defeat any candidate, like Romney, who dares challenge the organization's hefty take at the public trough.

Obama is very wrong on this issue. Planned Parenthood is the nation's leading practitioner and champion of the greatest injustice in American society today -- and its government funding is fungible and clearly works to support its abortion practice. Planned Parenthood performs hundreds of thousands of elective abortions every year while raking in hundreds of millions of government dollars. As funding has increased the abortion total has increased at a corresponding rate. American taxpayers should not be made a party to this. Obama absolutely, resolutely insists that they be. He has even decided to make this a primary talking point during his campaign. But that can only work if he obscures the facts.

Obama claimed last night that Planned Parenthood's ability to perform mammograms is at stake in this election. Planned Parenthood does not even offer mammograms. It can only refer women to other, better clinics that provide more in the way of actual health care for women in need. There is no "health care" justification for directing valuable funds to a controversial abortion business instead of the many non-abortion health care facilities. Those who oppose taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood don't oppose health care for low-income women, as Obama and his Hollywood supporters falsely claim. But they do think funds can be used more effectively for the genuine benefit of women. Obama is an ideologue who won't even consider such a thing -- because this debate isn't really about health care.

Planned Parenthood is an already-wealthy, hyper-political, scandal-plagued marketing machine that profits immensely from performing abortions on women and from soaking the American taxpayer with the help of political BFFs like Barack Obama. We, the American people, should get out of the abortion industry. The first step is on Nov. 6.

MN taxpayers forced to pay for 3,700 abortions in 2010

The following was released today, May 2.

ST. PAUL — After 15 years of taxpayer-funded abortions, Minnesotans have funded more than 58,000 abortions at a cost of $18 million, according to a just-released report from the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS). Nearly all of these abortions have been elective.

Since its successful 1995 challenge to Minnesota's law which prohibited funding of most abortions, the state's abortion industry has steadily increased its taxpayer-funded procedure numbers and revenue by marketing taxpayer-funded abortions to low-income women. Taxpayers now pay for 32.7 percent of all abortions performed in the state — the highest percentage ever.

"Economically vulnerable women represent guaranteed revenue for the state's abortion centers," said Scott Fischbach, Executive Director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL). "It is time to end abortionists' money grab at the expense of poor women and their unborn children."

Minnesota taxpayers have been required to fund elective abortions since the Minnesota Supreme Court’s 1995 Doe v. Gomez ruling. In that decision, the Court created a state "right" to abortion on demand and obligated all taxpayers to fund abortions.

Since the Doe v. Gomez ruling, taxpayers have paid $18,692,827 for a total of 58,552 abortion procedure claims. The 2010 numbers are $1,405,741 paid for 3,757 abortions. Prior to the court decision, taxpayers were charged about $7,000 per year for about 23 abortions in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother.

Planned Parenthood posted big gains once again. Its abortion center in St. Paul increased its taxpayer funded abortions by 3.2 percent in 2010, the largest increase of any provider. Planned Parenthood's abortion marketing efforts to low-income and minority women have yielded a staggering 163 percent increase in its publicly funded abortions since 2000.

"Polls continue to show that most Minnesotans and most Americans are opposed to taxpayer funded abortions, yet they continue to be forced to pay for them," Fischbach said.

The state also pays for the cost of "treatment of incomplete induced abortions"; the 2010 total was $11,970. This amount is expected to continue to increase, according to DHS, due in part to the increased promotion of RU486 chemical abortions, which have a failure rate of up to 5 percent. Planned Parenthood began offering RU486 "webcam abortions" in Rochester in 2010, in which a doctor in St. Paul administers the drugs remotely via video teleconference. The doctor never examines the woman prior to prescribing the drugs, increasing the risks to the woman.

MCCL helped to pass a ban on taxpayer funded abortion during the 2011 legislative session; it was vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton. The measure would have ended the forced funding by taxpayers of this mistreatment of poor women and the killing of unborn children.

'Planned Parenthood took breast cancer victims as hostages'

Planned Parenthood's new abortion center in St. Paul

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, professors Robert P. George (Princeton) and O. Carter Snead (Notre Dame) discuss the controversy over the recent effort by Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a breast cancer charity, to withhold future grants from Planned Parenthood, the nation's #1 performer and promoter of elective abortion.

The reality is that Planned Parenthood—with annual revenues exceeding $1 billion—does little in the way of screening for breast cancer. But the organization is very much in the business of selling abortions—more than 300,000 in 2010, according to Planned Parenthood. At an average cost of $500, according to various sources including Planned Parenthood's website, that translates to about $164 million of revenue per year.

So how did Planned Parenthood and its loyal allies in politics and the media react to Komen's efforts to be neutral in the controversy over abortion?

Faced with even the tiniest depletion in the massive river of funds Planned Parenthood receives yearly, the behemoth mobilized its enormous cultural, media, financial and political apparatus to attack the Komen Foundation in the press, on TV and through social media.

The organization's allies demonized the charity, attempting to depict the nation's most prominent anti-breast cancer organization as a bedfellow of religious extremists. A Facebook page was set up to "Defund the Komen Foundation." In short, Planned Parenthood took breast-cancer victims as hostages.

In my earlier post, I offered five reasons why it makes little sense for Komen to entangle itself with Planned Parenthood. George and Snead expound on some key details:

Among Komen's reasons for discontinuing grants to Planned Parenthood was its policy of avoiding entanglements with entities under government investigation. Planned Parenthood has been and is under congressional and criminal investigation (by attorneys general, local prosecutors and various regulatory agencies in Arizona, Indiana, Alabama, Kansas and Texas) for allegations including failure to report criminal child sex abuse, misuse of health-care and family-planning funds, and failure to comply with parental-involvement laws regarding abortions.

Planned Parenthood is very far from the uncontroversial organization the Susan G. Komen Foundation aspires to be. According to its most recent annual report, for 2010, Planned Parenthood sells abortions to nine out of every 10 pregnant women who come to its clinics. And it's known throughout the country as an implacable and aggressive opponent of any meaningful restrictions on deliberate feticide.

Planned Parenthood has spent millions fighting even those legislative initiatives that command extremely wide public support, such as laws requiring parental notification and informed consent for abortions, and those banning late-term abortions when the child developing in the womb is fully viable. Planned Parenthood even opposes a bill recently introduced in Congress to ban abortions for the purpose of sex selection.

It is easy to see why Komen might not wish to be associated with Planned Parenthood. Fighting breast cancer is something all Americans can and do agree on; promoting and performing abortions is something that divides us bitterly.

Finally, George and Snead track Planned Parenthood's recent history of ruthless money-grubbing:

While Planned Parenthood's target in the Komen case was new, its tactics are not. In the past two years, we have seen the abortion giant (and the politicians it funds) hold for ransom a diverse array of hostages.

In 2010, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress risked and narrowly averted the rejection of their signature health-care law in order to block the inclusion of provisions (such as the 1970s Hyde Amendment) that prevent federal abortion funding. At the 11th hour, a handful of "pro-life" Democrats capitulated, giving Mr. Obama and Planned Parenthood their victory.

Last year, in April, Mr. Obama risked a government shutdown over language in a resolution that would have defunded Planned Parenthood at the federal level. At the last moment, congressional Republicans gave way and allowed the federal money to keep flowing.

Also in 2011, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services threatened to withhold billions of dollars in Medicaid funds from those states such as Indiana that prohibit state funding of Planned Parenthood and other entities that provide elective abortions. Planned Parenthood strongly opposed Indiana's attempt to cut off its funding and celebrated the federal government's intervention. Indiana is currently litigating the matter in federal court. ...

Breast-cancer victims are only the latest hostages taken by Planned Parenthood. Unless the organization is finally held to account, they will surely not be the last.

Other commentators have also written thoughtfully and insightfully on the Komen/Planned Parenthood controversy, including Kathryn Jean Lopez, Mona Charen, Ross Douthat, Jennifer Rubin, Mark Steyn and Kathleen Parker.